RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY

PDF · subscribers
WP/17507/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01039924202222 September 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was not granted. The Court set aside the orders and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash a penalty order and demand notice issued under Section 271DA and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that despite repeated requests for a personal hearing, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting it.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order and demand notice were validly passed without providing the assessee with an opportunity for personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271DA,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17507 OF 2022(T-IT)

BETWEEN

RAJYA VOKKALIGARA SANGHA 29, 2ND CROSS NEXT TO KIMS K R ROAD, VISVESWARA PURAM BANGALORE- 560004. (REPRESENTED BY MR T KONAPPA REDDY S/O MR THIPPI REDDY) AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS REGISTERED UNDER THE MYSORE SOCIETIES ACT 1904.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J JAIN, ADV. FOR SMT.GEETHA RANI K., ADV.)

AND 1 . THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY

/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

INCOME TAX OFFICER,

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO. 401 , 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI -110003.

2 . THE ASSISTANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING,

BANGALORE – 560001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

-2- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER WISE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER VIDE ITBA/ PNL/F/ 271DA/2021.22/1039294893(1),DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED R1 UNDER SECTION 271DA FOR AY.2018.19, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- A. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned penalty order vide ITBA/PNL/F/271DA/2021-22/10392 94893 (1), dated 02.02.2022 issued by the learned First Respondent under section 271DA for AY 2018-19, enclosed in Annexure-A.

B. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned demand notice under section 156 of the Act vide ITBA/PNL/S/156/2021- 22/1039294355 (1), dated 01.02.2022 issued by the learned Respondent for AY 2018-19, enclosed in Annexure-B.

C. Direct the Learned Respondent to consider the submissions filed by the Petitioner on merits after giving opportunity of Personal hearing to the petitioner and

-3- D. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble High Court may think fit including the cost of this writ petition.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the show cause notice dated 20.04.2021 issued by respondent No.1 purporting to initiate the penalty proceedings against the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 31.05.2021 along with all relevant documents and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued one more show cause notice dated 06.12.2021 to which the petitioner issued one more reply dated 13.12.2021 and reiterated his request for an opportunity for personal hearing.

-4-

4.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite repeatedly requesting respondent No.1 for an opportunity for personal hearing, either physically or by way of video conferencing, respondent No.1 has not provided the said opportunity to the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned penalty order dated 02.02.2022, which is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court in the present petition.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the matter and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the replies dated 31.05.21 and 13.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner along with documents clearly indicates that the petitioner has specifically requested for an opportunity for personal hearing, which has not been granted in favour of the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order as evident

-5- from the impugned order itself which does not even refer to the aforesaid request for personal hearing made by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in the light of the undisputed fact that request of the petitioner for personal hearing has not been acceded to by respondent No.1, I am of considered opinion that impugned orders dated 02.02.2022 and 01.02.2022 deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner.

7.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment orders dated 02.02.2022 and 01.02.2022 at Annexures-A and B are hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.

-6- (iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to provide an opportunity for personal hearing in favour of the petitioner and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as stated supra.

Sd/- JUDGE

KA/SRL

More judgments on Section 271DA

All 211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271DA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →